Enamel Surface Roughness after Orthodontic Bracket Debonding and Composite Resin Removal by Two Types of Burs

作者: Ramin Omidvar , Alireza Akbarzadeh , Nazilla Ameli , Shadi Mohebi , Hassan-Ali Shafiee

DOI:

关键词:

摘要: Objective: Increased enamel surface roughness following orthodontic bracket debonding leads to increased plaque accumulation and decalcification. Therefore, different methods are employed achieve smoother surfaces after debonding. This study compared composite resin removal using white stone tungsten carbide burs. Methods: In this in-vitro, experimental study, 20 first second premolars of 10-20 year-olds were collected their crowns mounted in acrylic blocks. Roughness the buccal teeth was determined by atomic force microscopy (AFM) brackets bonded teeth. After debonding, remnants removed Parameters AFM time required for also calculated. Repeated measures ANOVA used assess changes parameters based on measurement, type bur interaction effect. Time analyzed one-way Tukey’s multiple comparisons. Results: Resin baseline values all groups. However, no significant differences noted between two types burs regarding arithmetic average profile (Ra), root mean square (Rq) maximum peak-to-valley height sampling length (Rt) removal. with (34.2 seconds) significantly shorter than (56.6 seconds)(both ps<0.0001). Conclusion: Considering similar achieved burs, recommended

参考文章(32)
Phillip M. Campbell, Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthodontist. ,vol. 65, pp. 103- 110 ,(1995) , 10.1043/0003-3219(1995)065<0103:ESAOBD>2.0.CO;2
NJ Cochrane, S Ratneser, EC Reynolds, Effect of different orthodontic adhesive removal techniques on sound, demineralized and remineralized enamel. Australian Dental Journal. ,vol. 57, pp. 365- 372 ,(2012) , 10.1111/J.1834-7819.2012.01713.X
Lorenz M. Brauchli, Eva-Maria Baumgartner, Judith Ball, Andrea Wichelhaus, Roughness of enamel surfaces after different bonding and debonding procedures Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie. ,vol. 72, pp. 61- 67 ,(2011) , 10.1007/S00056-010-0002-3
G. W. Marshall, M. Balooch, R. R. Gallagher, S. A. Gansky, S. J. Marshall, Mechanical properties of the dentinoenamel junction: AFM studies of nanohardness, elastic modulus, and fracture. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. ,vol. 54, pp. 87- 95 ,(2001) , 10.1002/1097-4636(200101)54:1<87::AID-JBM10>3.0.CO;2-Z
Mohammed F Ayad, Stephen F Rosenstiel, Moustafa M Hassan, Surface roughness of dentin after tooth preparation with different rotary instrumentation Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. ,vol. 75, pp. 122- 128 ,(1996) , 10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90087-6
Bjørn U. Zachrisson, Jon Årthun, Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques American Journal of Orthodontics. ,vol. 75, pp. 121- 137 ,(1979) , 10.1016/0002-9416(79)90181-7
S.A. Whitehead, A.C. Shearer, D.C. Watts, N.H.F. Wilson, Comparison of two stylus methods for measuring surface texture. Dental Materials. ,vol. 15, pp. 79- 86 ,(1999) , 10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00017-2
John J. Wahle, Stanley L. Wendt, Dentinal surface roughness: A comparison of tooth preparation techniques Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. ,vol. 69, pp. 160- 164 ,(1993) , 10.1016/0022-3913(93)90135-B
Keith V. Krell, James M. Courey, Samir E. Bishara, Orthodontic bracket removal using conventional and ultrasonic debonding techniques, enamel loss, and time requirements American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. ,vol. 103, pp. 258- 266 ,(1993) , 10.1016/0889-5406(93)70007-B
B. Tholt, W. G. Miranda-Júnior, R. Prioli, J. Thompson, M. Oda, Surface roughness in ceramics with different finishing techniques using atomic force microscope and profilometer. Operative Dentistry. ,vol. 31, pp. 442- 449 ,(2006) , 10.2341/05-54